Wednesday, June 13, 2012

On Sublation

A chain of thought is only as strong as its weakest link.

When people try to defend a given system of thought, they often concentrate on what they perceive to be the weakest part of their argument.

For example, people fear that a free market is bound to devolve into chaos. In reaction to this fear, proponents of the free market concentrate heavily on how order appears in free market systems. Some conservative pundits double down by de-emphasizing the liberating aspects of freedom.

On the other side of the aisle, socialism is a top-down system built around the social order. Socialist societies tend to demand conformity. Historically, many socialist societies were formed around ethnic groups. Such socialist societies created fantastic racial histories about why their race is intended to dominate and rule over others. Racist forms of socialism would use open racial oppression to keep people in check.

Socialism has an equally strange relation to religion. Prior to Marx socialist groups used radicalize religion to impose order. Marx stirred things up by using radicalized irreligion for the same end.

Neither radical-religious nor radical-irreligious forms of socialism are tolerant of different beliefs. Some people who wave the banner "secularism" are not tolerant of other's beliefs.

Since socialism demands conformity, many socialists is a hard time allowing diverse thoughts. The result is that the history of socialism is ugly. Attempts to impose socialism were rife with genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced famines and other atrocities.

By the mid-twentieth century, the closed nature of socialism had become so ugly that socialist thinkers of the progressive era realized they had to engineer a complete about face on race to save their ideology.

Socialist intellectuals like Karl Popper realized that, to revive interest in socialism, they must rebrand it from the ground up as "The Open Society." The open society uses radical-diversity to spread socialist ideals.

Radical diversity is not all bad. Some good things came from the effort.

In the United States we find that, prior to the Civil Rights movement, the left used race in its demand for bigger government. Segregation demanded government action to keep races apart. The KKK was a leftist group akin to OWS. Jim Crow Laws came from the left.

Racism was no longer working for the left; so they adopted radicalized-diversity and the left turned on the racist. This was a good thing.

Since the left polices thought and does not allow a diversity of opinion they were able to turn on this issue in a single generation.

Radical diversity made for paradoxical politics.

The free market is fundamentally diverse and does not actively police thoughts. A person can have regressive racist thoughts. A business owner can have a small firm that only does business with members of his race. Such people miss out, but such is their prerogative as free individuals.

As the proponents of radical diversity drove racist from their ranks, they were able to frame the free market as racist because it allowed diverse opinions.

I must add a note here. The free market allows diverse thought, but the system cannot allow groups to lock other groups out of the market. For a free market to survive, people must take action to prevent groups from denying freedom to others.

This statement is not about the diversity of opinion. You can think whatever you like, but people's freedoms stop when they start infringing on the freedoms of others. I believe that free marketeers have a duty to study the market and remove any artificial barriers preventing people from participating in the market.

Now, I applaud the left for turning against racism. By addressing one of the biggest weaknesses of socialism, the left created a paradoxical world in which they frame freedom of thought as racist, and a system that demands conformity to radical-diversity as diverse.

The German philosopher Hegel called the process in which terms turn into their opposite "sublation." The left studied sublation in detail, and are skilled at playing "conservatives" in ways that systematically destroy the free market.

Conservatives get played by the left in many different ways.

The primary concern of a conservative is preserving the social order. Conservatives (unlike Libertarians or Classical Liberals) are terrified by freedom.

Contrary to claims, the US Founders were NOT conservatives. The conservatives of 1776 were called Tories. The conservatives of 1776 supported King George.

The American Revolution was not a "Conservative Revolution." It completely disrupted the social order. Prior to the revolution, people at the top of the social order derived their position from their relation with the crown. The revolution flipped things on its head.

After the revolution a new social order appeared with the property owners at the top.

The conservative movement we know today did not really exist until the 1960s. The primary concern of this conservative movement is preserving the new social order that evolved in a free society.

Modern Conservatism is paradoxical. Conservatives support a social order that evolved in a free society and not at the logical foundations of freedom. Many are terrified at the prospects of liberty.

The Modern left has learned to play on the fears of Conservatives by encouraging self-destructive and libertine behavior. Conservatives respond by balling up and supporting anti-market institutions.

Because Conservatives are so caught up in defending institutions that impose order, they've failed to notice that many of these institutions have evolved into things that are both anti-market and anti-freedom.

If you look at our markets and communities, you will find that they are dominated by large institutions which lock large segments of the population from meaningful participation in society.

I've concentrated heavily on insurance. With insurance, people put their health care resources into big thrid party pools. The owners of the pools become ungodly rich and the people lose control over their health care decisions.

In three years, I've been unable to find a conservative group willing to discuss alternatives to insurance.

The problem is not just insurance. Big finance has created a market that is able to lock most people out of meaningful participation in business.

Bungleheaded conservatives are so caught up in preserving their precious little social order that they are willing to sell out on the fundamental issue of supporting liberty.

As proof of the bungling conservative, we need look no further than the presidential election in which both the Democratic and Republican candidate support socializing health care via government controlled health exchanges.

Conservatives get so wrapped up in defending their social order and kicking down the people they don't like that they turn an inherently open society into a closed one. With their exclusive focus on preserving their social order through captured markets, Conservatives are part of the sublation of our once free society into its opposite.

Speaking of the term sublation. Did I ever mention? HEGEL WAS A CONSERVATIVE.